State Of Punjab vs Rajinder Singh & Ors

State of Punjab ...Appellant

Versus

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Etc. ...Respondents

With Criminal Appeal Nos.9-10 of 2004

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court. It has upheld the conviction of the seven accused persons

convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 323

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'), while

acquitting accused Mohan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulvinder Singh and Gurcharan

Singh of charges relatable to Sections 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC.

Originally, there were nine accused persons out of whom two were acquitted by the

Trial Court.

-2-

2. Criminal Appeal Nos.1152 to 1154 of 2003 have been filed by the State

questioning the acquittal while other appeals have been filed by the convicted accused

persons.

3. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

At about 4.00 P.M. on 23.09.1996 Surjit Kaur, (PW-3) the wife of

Darshan Singh and the resident of village Dhadrian along with her son Sukhjinder

Singh, her father Jangir Singh, her brother Mohinder Singh and cousin Surjit Singh

were present in her house whereas her husband Darshan Singh had gone to the fields.

In the meanwhile, her father- in-law Mohan Singh armed with a gandasa, Kulwinder

Singh and Bhola Singh, son of Hardial Singh, Hardial Singh and Gurnam Singh

armed with a dang each, Rajinder Singh armed with an axe and Santa Singh

(hereinafter referred to as Lamberdar) empty handed and two unidentified persons all

armed with Dangs came in a jeep. Accused Mohan Singh raised a lalkara that the

complainant party should be taught a lesson for taking possession of the land and the

Dera. The accused persons opened attack on the complainant party causing

injuries to Surjit Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh, Jangir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Surjit

Singh and Darshan Singh came to the

spot and raised an alarm on which the accused persons went

-3-

towards that side and gave a beating to Jangir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the

deceased) and took him away.

Surjit Kaur and other persons injured were thereafter taken to the

Primary Health Centre, Longowal. Information was sent to the police station on

which investigation was started.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused were

charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 364, 302, 201, 120-B, 148

and 149 IPC. Since they pleaded innocence, they were put on trial. The Trial

Court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses and held three of the

accused persons to be guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC,

whereas accused Gurcharan Singh and Mohinder Singh were convicted under

Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and all the seven accused persons guilty of

offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148

and 323 IPC.

5. Appeals were preferred by the convicted accused persons. By the impugned

judgment, the High Court, while upholding the conviction of the respondents so far as

the conviction under Section 364 read with 149 IPC is concerned, directed acquittal of

all the three accused persons who were

-4-

convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and the two who were

convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

It is brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant-State that accused

Mohinder Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court

and Mohan Singh had died during the pendency of the present Criminal Appeals.

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State, the evidence of PW-10, Leela

Singh, who was the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence, relating to murder was

cogent and credible and the High Court should not have discarded his evidence.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the analysis

made by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW-10 so far as the charge under

Section 302 and/or 302/149 IPC is concerned, cannot be faulted with.

7. The High Court has noted that Leela Singh (PW-10) was allegedly the

solitary witness to prove the charge. The High Court noted that he had not offered

any basis for his presence in the alleged occurrence. Additionally, he did not disclose

about the incident for about 10 days and suddenly according to him, his conscious

pricked him and he

came forward to speak about the incident to the police. It

further appears that the manner of assaults were specifically detailed, is too hard to be

believed.

-5-

8. The High Court found that his conduct was most unusual. Though, he

claimed that he was an independent witness and had no relationship with the deceased

or his family members, the witness fairly admitted that he was closely related to the

deceased. The High Court, in the aforesaid background analysed his evidence with

care and caution. It was noticed that his silence was most unusual because he was

closely related to the deceased. Furthermore, the explanation offered that suddenly he

became conscious of his constitutional duties to see that guilty persons get

punishment, was hardly believable. His evidence about the manner of assault

attributed to the various accused persons was too hollow to have any credence. It was quite unnatural that the manner in which the assaults were given could be given with

such precision when accused persons were many as was the number of injuries. That

being the position, we do not find any scope for interference in these appeals with the

order of acquittal so far as the offence relatable to Section 302 or 302/149 IPC are

concerned. The appeal, as noted above, survives only in respect of respondents

Rajinder Singh and Kulvinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The appeals are

dismissed accordingly.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.9-10 OF 2004

These two appeals have been filed by accused Gurcharan Singh and

Rajinder Singh. After going through the

-6-

well reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and the fact that the

appellants have already served out the sentence, as imposed, these appeals have, in

any event, become infructuous and are, accordingly dismissed.

.....................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.....................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, November 05, 2008.